IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2″

Mike Sanicola  says:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

January 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm

This is exactly what I have been reporting from running the radiative transfer model used by NCAR. The people writing these models know that global warming is BS.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

187 Responses to IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2″

  1. DirkH says:

    “Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. ”

    Yay! Somebody noticed! Finally.

  2. DirkH says:

    Old note of mine:
    During an exchange at WUWT I just found out that the two CO2 absorption bands, centered at 4.3 and 15 micrometer, correspond to Planck temperatures of about 600 K and 200 K respectively. Mammals and humans radiate predominantly at 10 micrometer with their 300 K body temperature.
    Meaning that CO2 absorption doesn’t even come into play much before your temperature drops to the proximity -75 deg C; from where it might serve as a little backstop slowing your further cooling to absolute zero.
    (Wien’s displacement law)
    A spectrum and a funny invention:
    http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/Global_Warming_Myth/lynching_of_carbon_dioxide.htm

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      Dirk, (and anyone else)
      I followed the link to the “Debt Elimination” site and read the post by Dr. Martin Hertzberg. Therein, he presents a vertical bar chart labeled “The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.”
      The first time I saw this chart it appeared to be from another person and produced using a computer simulation program called MODTRAN (V4, I think). I’ve looked at the MODTRAN web site and it needed more time than I had (about 3 or 4 years ago). Willis (at WUWT) used this chart once and a not too careful person attributed the chart to him.
      Here are the words of Dr. Hertzberg: “The situation is further clarified in this next figure, where we show the effect of increasing the concentration of CO2 on atmospheric heating.

      Note the “we” used. If I wrote a paper and used this bar chart I would state how it was derived or site a source. I have seen this chart several places on the web and now wonder about its creator and that leads to other questions, such as, what assumptions were used to make it, and how close to the truth it is.

      I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I just don’t know. The bio of Dr. Hertzberg from the web gives every indication that he could produce this chart and know what he was doing.

      • DirkH says:

        Can’t answer it; I just assume that the spectra are ok. GCM’s are obviously worthless; but radiative transfer codes are way easier to validate against observations (weather balloon recordings).

  3. DirkH says:

    And another one about Methane, while we’re at it:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/gavin-on-why-the-arctic-methane-alarm-is-implausible/#comment-1371582
    Bevan says:
    July 26, 2013 at 12:17 am
    “The main absorption peak for methane is at a wavelength of about 3.3 microns”
    Very nice; that should correspond to a color temperature of about 1200 K or 900 deg C.
    ( Wien’s displacement law)
    Methane should be great in capturing and re-emitting radiative heat of furnaces then.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    The governments of the worlds have earmarked literally hundreds of billions of dollars to prove or further AGW and its greenhouse theory. Any study that was funded with the express purpose of doing that… will do just that. And how much govt money has been allotted to exploring alternatives to the warmist view? Zero. The dice are loaded.

    And I’m going to reference my main squeeze as far as videos again, as this video convincingly and graphically shows in just over 3 minutes that there is NO evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures… at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

    • Keitho says:

      Those chops over at SkS claim that whilst CO2 follows temperature it exacerbates things as it rises. They, regrettably, offer no explanation for the temperature dropping while the atmospheric CO2 levels go on to peak 600-800 years after the temperature has peaked.

      They then go on to say that this time it is different because CO2 is rising faster than it ever has and is preceding temperature because, well, we made the CO2. That’s it, the whole “explanation”. The alarmists don’t seem very smart to me.

  5. Andyj says:

    Now you know, they have to obtain CO2 bandwidth readings from the driest, highest places on Earth. Looking at the MODIS pictures at the relevant frequencies shows squat all of the seas and land. The air is opaque and no amount of extra CO2 is going to make a tap of a difference.

  6. Steve Case says:

    World temperature since 1850 has gone up and down in a near perfect 66 year cycle, mostly up, and doesn’t correlate with CO2. Theory says a doubling of CO2 without mitigating factors should run the temperature up about 1.2°C for a doubling in concentration. It isn’t very clear whether that happens at all.

  7. Pat Frank says:

    The AGW story is not back-radiation in the CO2 band. It’s about black-body thermal back-radiation. Vibrationally activated CO2 (CO2*) does not radiatively decay. Virtually all the CO2* decays by collision with nitrogen or oxygen. The result is an increase in the translational kinetic energy of those gases. So, the CO2 mechanism is to convert IR energy into kinetic energy.

    Kinetic energy of gases is measured in units of kT, which means that kinetically more energetic gases have a higher temperature. This is the whole basis of the AGW claim. The increased kinetic energy contributed by CO2* is supposed to convert into sensible heat. And so it would, too, if the atmosphere was just gas in a bottle. But it’s not. The atmosphere can respond in a variety of ways to an increase in kinetic energy. Convective updrafts can increase in vigor (warmer gas is less dense gas). Evaporation can increase, along with cloud formation.

    More vigorous convection and a more vigorous hydrology can increase the efficiency by which energy is radiated off into space. It’s possible that none of the extra energy produced by more CO2* will show up as sensible heat in the atmosphere. It’s also possible that the increased rate of evaporation won’t even show up as an increase in relative humidity, if more clouds increases tropical rain a bit.

    Hydrology controls the terrestrial climate. How hydrology and convection respond to the extra energy produced by the higher CO2* due to emissions, will completely control what we observe. So far, apart from increased CO2 itself (and a greener ecology), we haven’t observed any particular effect at all. This suggests that the terrestrial climate is efficiently radiating away most or all of the extra CO2* energy.

    Back in 2010, I posted an analysis of the response of the climate to CO2 on Jeffid’s tAV. That analysis implies a recent climate sensitivity of about 0.1 Celsius/Wm^-2, and that climate sensitivity is actually decreasing as CO2 is increasing. That is, there may be a compensating mechanism in the climate that gets stronger as CO2 forcing increases. This compensation could well be increased cloud formation and energy rain-out. It wouldn’t take much of that to completely suppress any thermal effect of increased CO2. This implies the climate is in a negative-feedback stabilized state — something Richard Lindzen has published about.

    But in any case, there’s no reason to think that the lack of CO2 IR back-radiation says anything about the claim of AGW. The AGW claim includes that there should be no CO2 IR back-radiation, because it all gets converted into kinetic energy. But where that kinetic energy goes — that’s the rub.

    • DirkH says:

      “Vibrationally activated CO2 (CO2*) does not radiatively decay. Virtually all the CO2* decays by collision with nitrogen or oxygen. The result is an increase in the translational kinetic energy of those gases. So, the CO2 mechanism is to convert IR energy into kinetic energy.”

      Thermalization and dethermalization must happen to equal amounts in local thermal equilibrium. This is Kirchhoff’s Law; not just a friendly suggestion.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    • DirkH says:

      ” The AGW claim includes that there should be no CO2 IR back-radiation, because it all gets converted into kinetic energy.”

      So, no, they can’t actually claim that; and they have noticed, and for quite a while reduced their once ubiquitious and ridiculous idiom “heat-trapping gases”.

    • DirkH says:

      Your 2010 analysis looks a lot like what Miskolczi predicts; CO2 and H2O cannibalizing each other, rising CO2 pushing out water vapor.

      see for an experimental take on the warmist claim of positive water vapor feedback here
      “A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
      Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:”
      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html

    • Pat Frank, You just gave us 6 paragraphs on where the energy absorbed by CO2 goes, but never mention how it got there in the first place. Listen carefully. Earth radiates IR in the N band. Carbon dioxide does not absorb IR in the N band. That’s why it’s the N band. Other wavelengths of IR that CO2 can and might absorb, are not emitted by Earth.

      There, one paragraph totally wipes out everything you said. The other person asked why I remained silent for 40 years, just normal proprietary information forms I signed with GE. You want to know this info, ask the engineers there. Don’t ask NASA. I laugh because everybody thinks NASA are these great scientists because they can send telescopes and other high-tech components into space on rockets. But who do you think built those components? And who do you think built the rockets. NASA knows nothing, and GE ain’t telling. Ha ha ha ha.

      Sorry, just enjoying a cup of coffee on a cold sunday in electric city. When I argue about global warming the kids all accuse me of working for big oil. I say no, I’m with big electric, and that’s much worse!! Ha ha ha!

      Thanks Steve for this fantastic website. Best on the www by far.

    • Keitho says:

      Now you’re talking Pat. The hydrological cycle is what rules our climate by bringing in weather variation and overall stability. Even a dozy civil engineer understands that.

  8. Bob Greene says:

    Why was he silent for 40 years?

    • Latitude says:

      “”I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. “”

    • Jimbo says:

      Funding and being ostracized.

      • Bob Greene says:

        Quite possible. If you look at absorption lines for CO2 and water, they overlap as discussed. At much higher concentrations water absorptions will swamp out any contributions you can see from CO2. It can be argued that just because you can’t see the absorption because of H2O interference it doesn’t mean that it is not there. The trick would be to come up with a global air moisture content so you could quantify the contributions from CO2. Good luck on that.

        • None of that is necessary Bob. The overlaps between CO2 and water vapor don’t matter, because they don’t happen in the N-Band. Everybody is looking at IR in its entire spectral range from .75 microns to 300 microns and assuming that just because it’s IR, it can absorb the heat radiated from Earth. Not true. The heat radiated from earth is very specifically its temperature range of 220 to 320 K, and the peak IR associated with that temperature range is 9 to 13 microns. The CO2 can’t absorb energy outside that band, because it doesn’t exist.

          As Mike Sanicola said…read his post again.

        • (edited version)

          None of that is necessary Bob. The overlaps between CO2 and water vapor don’t matter, because they don’t happen in the N-Band. Everybody is looking at IR in its entire spectral range from .75 microns to 300 microns and assuming that just because it’s IR, it is radiated from Earth. Not true. The heat radiated from earth is very specifically its temperature range of 220 to 320 K, and the peak IR associated with that temperature range is 9 to 13 microns. The CO2 can’t absorb energy outside that band, because it doesn’t exist.

          As Mike Sanicola said…read his post again.

  9. Andy Oz says:

    Logic is wasted on alarmists. It’s almost better to alarm them even more so they all run off the cliff like lemmings leaving the world to free thinkers. Making fun of them as they do it is quite appropriate.

    I see the whole CAGW issue as an long term exercise in managing groupthink.
    To control individuals you must control a large group, you must control the way they think. Starting from 5 years old, people are programmed by “approved curriculum’s” so that by the time they are 18, you own them. Fear is the powerful motivator used to make the responses automatic to stimulation. Fear of exclusion is a powerful motivator to gain compliance. Once there is a critical mass of group thinkers, then you gain control of the society. Free thinking individuals are demonised (“denialists”) because they provide dissonance to the groupthink message.
    Read the history of Edward Bernays and you see a person almost as loathsome as Goebbels and Himmler. His work for the tobacco industry alone probably garnered more deaths than the concentration camps. His disciples are still using his groupthink management principles, discovered by his uncle Sigmund Freud. Washington DC is groupthink central, and CAGW is the elites precious and most successful pet project to control the fearful masses.
    I applaud Steven and everyone who is publishing the dissonance message.
    I have zero respect for the elites.

    • squid2112 says:

      Very good Andy Oz,

      I see the whole CAGW issue as an long term exercise in managing groupthink.
      To control individuals you must control a large group, you must control the way they think.

      This is all because there are so many “cattle” out there. This happens within politics as well. The cattle will follow the herd, no matter how outrageous. It is very difficult to redirect and change the thinking of a “cow”. Their natural tendency, generally through laziness, is to mindlessly follow the herd. One must change the leadership of the herd to change the direction of the “cattle”.

    • asubot says:

      Could not agree more, I saw it starting to happen during our dearly beloved sixties and it only got worse, We finally moved to a smaller community in the early 80’s, where (for awhile anyway) we had lots of good if not great (in their 50-60’s) EDUCATORS, but as soon as the universities started pushing out the “group” teachers???. We thankfully got through for our kids sake. I am glad they call them selves “teachers” that’s all they are, “babysitters” is a better way to view them! The word educator seems to have disappeared from the vocabulary.

    • Cameron says:

      Hi Andy,
      how much do you actually know about Goebbels, Himmler and the concentration camps?
      That is yet another program of groupthink.

      • Andy OZ says:

        Hi Cameron
        I think that is “Forest for the Trees.”
        The important part of Mike Sanicola’s post is that CAGW is a fraud dressed up as science and is decades in the making. Mike debunked it in a paragraph or two. Anyone who has been to the tropics and to the desert know he is correct. Steven and numerous others have debunked CAGW so many times it is evident that it is not about science. Group thinkers will not agree because they have been programmed otherwise.

    • Keitho says:

      Indeed. It was the elites in Russia who managed to form a national consensus around communism. It was the elites in Europe who formed a consensus that the Euro was a good idea and would benefit all countries who used it.

      The elites with their useless consensus’ will be the death of us all if we aren’t vigilant.

  10. jmrsudbury says:

    So a quick check netted the following links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy

    They both say that the infrared telescopes are built on mountains to try to escape the effect of water vapour. A quote from the second link says the following:

    “The principal limitation on infrared sensitivity from ground-based telescopes is the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation, and the atmosphere itself emits at infrared wavelengths. For this reason, most infrared telescopes are built in very dry places at high altitude, so that they are above most of the water vapor in the atmosphere.”

    Nothing there about CO2.

    The http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/ir-telescopes.pdf file says, “Another problem to be overcome by ground-based observatories was the absorption of infrared radiation by gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Fortunately, in the near-infrared and mid-infrared regions, from 1 to 10 μm, there are some clear atmospheric ‘windows’. From observatories on high mountain peaks, astronomers are able to use these ‘windows’ to investigate the infrared sky at certain wavelengths.”

    That is the only mention of carbon dioxide in the file. The rest is about water vapour like, “However, even the Mauna Kea site is not high enough to allow far-infrared observations. In order to rise above the bulk of the water vapor and the atmosphere, astronomers have turned to placing telescopes on balloons, sounding rockets or high-flying aircraft.”

    There is also the following paragraph from the second page:

    “However, a much larger, more powerful successor is scheduled to become operational in 2002. NASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) will fly on board a modified Boeing 747-SP aircraft at an operational height of 12.5 km (nearly 41 000 ft). From this altitude, SOFIA will be above 99.9% of the infrared absorbing atmospheric water vapor that limits ground based infrared observations.”

    They are working hard to get above 99.9% of the water but they don’t care to mention carbon dioxide.

    Interesting.

    John M Reynolds

  11. gregole says:

    Steven,

    Thanks for posting this… very educational.
    Warmista are either ignoramuses or charlatans.
    Luke warmers – wannabees.

    • squid2112 says:

      Well, after watching Bill Nye the science dipshit on Fox Business the other night, I can tell you that in terms of warmista such as himself, he is a charlatan. You can tell he knows full well that AGW and especially CAGW is a crock of shit, and yet he clings to try to convince (especially young minds) that it is indeed a fact. Just watch him very carefully during any debate. Pay very careful attention to his words and how he approaches things. He is not very good at hiding his motives, which most certainly have nothing to do with “saving the planet”. For warmista’s, he is an example of the rule, not the exception.

      • gator69 says:

        I recorded and watched Nye’s embarrassing ‘debate’. He lead off by stating that the Earth’s human population had grown from 1 billion in 1750, to 7 billion today… (crickets)… then he pointed to the Hockey Stick Graph! What a tool! I almost felt bad for him.

        • squid2112 says:

          Rather painful to watch isn’t it? You illustrate my point though. He has to know that his arguments are complete bullshit, and yet he sticks to them anyway, despite knowing that it makes him look like a fool. He is not motivated by “saving the planet” from CO2 and Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption Weird Weather Dirty Weather Climate Change, but rather to bring forth some other agenda, through the deindustrialization of the industrialized world and denying undeveloped and under-developed nations the same right to the same reliable and affordable energies that the industrialized nations have been enjoying and prospering with for the past century. He and his kind are disgusting vermin, and should be treated as such at every opportunity (IMHO). If I were to debate “The Science Dumbass” (which I would love to do), I would tear him apart until I made him cry on national television, and then I would rub it in some more. I have had enough of people like him attempting to completely destroy my children and grand children’s lives. It is time to stop it.

        • squid2112 says:

          hmmm ..my strikes didn’t work …

        • squid2112 says:

          i see .. the [s] tag doesn’t work, but the [strike] tag does .. nice to know for the future..

          The line above should read:

          Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption Weird Weather Dirty Weather Climate Change

          See what I did there? We have come almost full circle now. We began this trip with “Global Warming”, moved to “Climate Change”, then then on to a bunch of short lived little pet names. But now it seems we are back to “Climate Change” and I believe we are heading strongly in the direction of “Global Warming” again. Which is why the “alarmists”, “warmista’s” and other assorted types of AGW and CAGW believers, are becoming so desperate. Once the conversation is back squarely on “Global Warming”, the game is over and they will have lost. We are almost there now….

          Cheers!

        • methylamine says:

          @Squid:

          Very well said, sir!

          It’s time to openly mock these people. They’re immune to reasoned debate, either because they’re in on the scam and have too much to lose, or they’re useful idiots and AGW is literally their religion. And make no mistake–it is a religion.

          So show anger, mock them for the fools and charlatans they are…and not because you’ll change THEIR minds, but you’ll alarm and wake up the sheep observing the argument.

          When I argue with collectivists at work now, I’ve taken off the gloves; I tell them their ideas kill people, starve children, and impoverish the world. They’re nasty little authoritarians.

          Tell them. Tell them STOP deluding yourself, collectivism never fucking works. And NO, it won’t be different this time. NO, it didn’t fail last time because they didn’t do it right, or hard enough or completely enough.

          It’s been done dozens of times perfectly; and the predictably perfect results are perfect horror. North Korea horror for shining current example.

          Tell them stop it! You’re delusional, your ideas are horribly dangerous and fatally flawed. They never work, they never WILL work, STFU.

          We’ve been too nice. We’ve assumed we’re arguing with an intellectually honest foe.

          Our foe is a psychopath or an idiot–he cannot be won over. But the sleep-walking sheep MUST be awakened or we’re facing hundreds of millions of deaths as the psychopaths cull their cattle again.

        • Jason Calley says:

          @ methylamine “Our foe is a psychopath or an idiot–he cannot be won over. But the sleep-walking sheep MUST be awakened or we’re facing hundreds of millions of deaths as the psychopaths cull their cattle again.”

          YES!! Thank you for saying something that deserves to be repeated over and over. Who is so foolish as to think that Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot could have been reformed by the use of persuasion and sweet reason? Yet, evil as they were, the only reason why they were successful was that they were supported by legions of sheep. Sheep do not reason well, and because of that they will fall for the most obvious great lie. They can be awakened by the truth, but not just any truth. They won’t understand subtle trains of mathematical or formal logic — but they will understand a simple message that what they are doing is bad because it kills people, it impoverishes nations, it abuses children, it destroys human compassion.

          Most people are good, yes, even including the sleeping sheep. They want a better world and peace for themselves and their children. The only way to make masses of people do evil things is to lead them by lies. Stop the lies, but use a type of truth which they understand.

        • methylamine says:

          @JasonCalley–thanks Jason. It’s not an original thought–the more I analyze the famous Alex Jones double-barreled ass-whuppin on Piers Morgan, the more I realize–he’s right! Show emotion, for God’s sake, these people want to kill us. Should we be calm and NPR-voiced in the face of imminent death?

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Jason! The trouble with sheep, is that an entire flock can be directed by just a few barking dogs.

        • philjourdan says:

          Calvera: If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

          The Magnificent Seven

  12. Marc says:

    Friends of Science dot org – go on to say that the ice cores at Vostok show temperature rise leading CO2 rise by as much as 800yr, cause and effect is reverse. Global heating is caused by solar output which has happened many times before. Water vapour is green house gas 1, 2, 3, & 4. This BS is leading to a global carbon head tax.

  13. Russ Steele says:

    Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
    It is sad that we have to wait until a scientist retires before we get the truth.

  14. Duhmy says:

    Steve, you list a large quote but do not say who it’s from. Can you please provide a name and bio for who said that?

  15. jack barton says:

    Mr. Steve, This is a particularly good thread. It should be included – someday – in your ‘classics.’

  16. I agree. There are about 10 proofs that global warming is wrong, but it seems they have concocted arguments for about 9 of them. I have never heard a rebuttal for this N-band argument that stuck. When the warmistas hear this, they shrug their shoulders and walk away sadly.

    You show the MWP using ice cores, they say ice cores are local
    You show that CO2 follows warming, they say it followed before, but not now
    You show sea level rise is linear, they show you spliced satellite data
    You say 97% consensus means nothing, look at Copernicus, they have some lame argument
    But when you tell them the sky only absorbs the heat that’s there, which is 9-13 microns, they have nothing.

    Yes, this is irrefutable proof that their uncontrovertible theory is wrong

  17. Pat Frank says:

    Mike, Figure 7-8 here, shows the emission spectrum of Earth, as seen from orbit. The source paper (Hanel, 1972), provides other emission spectra from other parts of the terrestrial surface, including polar regions.

    All the IR spectra are black-body-like continuous emission curves from (400-1600 wave numbers (6-25 microns), with obvious absorption by atmospheric gases including CO2. The maximum of IR emission always appears around 500 wave numbers (20 microns). So, the measurement data don’t support your claim that terrestrial IR emission is restricted to the N-band (7.5-14.5 microns) only.

    My own work has convinced me that, a. climate models are useless predictors, b. that the surface air temperature record is badly contaminated with ignored systematic measurement error, and c. that consensus proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions are no more than pseudoscience. I’m not a “warmist.”

    But one must give credit where it’s due. Measurements show there isn’t any doubt but that the sun-warmed terrestrial surface emits broad-spectrum IR, and that some of it is in the CO2 absorption energy region. Collisional deactivation of tropospheric CO2 is known to be much faster than radiative decay. So, kinetic energy is transferred from CO2 to N2/O2. It’s the next step that’s the core issue — how the climate disperses that energy.

  18. Let me refresh our memories of WIen’s Law

    (peak wavelength in microns) X (temperature in K) = 2898

    You say the peak wavelength is always 20 microns.

    WIen would say 2898 divided by 20 is 145K

    145 K is -128 C

    Do you think Earth is -128 C?

  19. Michael Hammer says:

    While I am very much an AGW skeptic I must disagree with the above post. I can well understand that infrared astronomers would look at the peak of the emission curve for their studies since that is the point of greatest sensitivity and for say 273K (0C) the peak is at about 10.6 microns , well away from 14.7 microns. However thermal emission conforms to Planks law and if you solve Planks law for 273K you find there is indeed substantial emission at 14.7 microns. In fact the intensity is about 80% of the peak intensity.

    From the point of view of an astronomer CO2 absorption may be irrelevant since they dont look between about 13 and 17 microns but unfortunately that does not mean there is no emission in that range or that CO2 absorption is irrelevant in a global warming sense. Atmospheric CO2 does absorb some of the thermal emission from Earth’s surface.

  20. Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

    Could Steven or Anthony at WuWT expand on this subject further via a dedicated post or paper? I would like to learn more.

  21. bobmaginnis says:

    Mike Sanicola, why don’t you mention 15 microns, where most of the action is at:

    Figure 7 . Two emission spectra of the earth and atmosphere as measured from the IRIS interferometer on board NIM
    http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/training/rcourse_notes/DATA_ASSIMILATION/REMOTE_SENSING/Remote_sensing7.html

    • Tel says:

      The upper figure is radiance measured over Antarctica while the lower one is measured over the Sahara desert.

      The upper figure is fitted against a black body radiation spectrum of 320K which seems a bit warm for Antarctica (maybe upper and lower are swapped?). Also, neither the Sahara nor Antarctica are known for their damp air, so I would like to see a comparison with somewhere in India or SE Asia so we can see how much effect the water has.

      Your link is from 1971, has anyone got a more recent measurement over the same area to see how much the change in CO2 has affected it?

      • bobmaginnis says:

        Tel,
        The upper and lower figures are obviously reversed. You can find newer graphs that agree with the old one. Check out the other chapters on the left hand side,

  22. Michael Moon says:

    Pat Frank,

    From your link, “Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth”

    No it isn’t, even if a Harvard textbook says it is. Several posters above gave very clear and accurate accounts of the result of IR from the Earth’s surface. You should learn the meaning of the word “thermalization.”

    • DirkH says:

      Thermalization and dethermalization must happen to equal amounts in Local Thermal Equilibrium (Kirchhoff’s Law). Therefore, re-radiation in all directions happens. About 50% are re-radiated downwards.

  23. BobMaginnis, Wien tells us 2898 ÷ 15 = 193 K which is -80 C

    If that satellite is recording -80 C which is colder than anywhere on the surface, then it’s measuring somewhere in the upper atmosphere. Satellites don’t measure earth’s surface temperature. They measure the TOA

    • Curt says:

      Morgan, thermal radiation is broad spectrum. There is substantial radiation at both subtantially greater and lesser frequencies than the peak frequency you calculate from Wien’s displacement law equation.

      • OK so if the peak is at 10 or 11 ɲ some of it would spill past 13 into the CO2 band. Got it.

        But, he said “most of the action” was at 15 which means top of atmosphere, the surface never gets that cold, and satellites can’t possibly measure the surface temperatures anyway unless the atmosphere moves out of the way

        It’s usually 35 C warmer at the surface than the TOA

        • Curt says:

          Morgan, when I say broad spectrum, I mean BROAD spectrum, far more than a few microns of wavelength in width. Take a good look at Figure 7-8 in the chapter Pat Frank cites here:

          http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

          For the frequency zones where the atmosphere is transparent, you see the radiation near the blackbody spectrum for 320K (47C), appropriate for the Sahara at noon. For the frequencies absorbed by H20, you see the radiation near the blackbody spectrum for 270C, the temperature of the mid-altitude atmosphere (above this, there is not much water vapor). For the frequencies absorbed by CO2, you see the radiation near the blackbody spectrum for 220K, corresponding to the upper atmosphere, where there is still a lot of CO2, but not much H20.

        • I just read your link Curt (Harvard book chapter 7). I especially see where it says:

          “Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. Consider a greenhouse gas absorbing at 11 mm, in the atmospheric window ( Figure 7-8 ). Injecting such a gas into the atmosphere would decrease the radiation emitted to space at 11 mm (since this radiation would now be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the warm surface). In order to maintain a constant terrestrial blackbody emission integrated over all wavelengths, it would be necessary to increase the emission flux in other regions of the spectrum and thus warm the Earth. Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.”

          So basically it says adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (adding more gas that absorbs 15 micrometers) “has no significant greenhouse effect” In other words, in order to have a significant greenhouse effect, you would have to add a gas that absorbs in the window, or at 11 microns in the above example.

          Thanks Curt. This proves the greenhouse effect is 100% wrong. First, because most of Earth’s radiation goes to space through the N-Band window, and second, because the CO2 band at 15 microns is already opaque, adding more to it does nothing. So, adding more CO2 to our atmosphere does nothing. Case closed.

        • Pat Frank says:

          Mike, the 15 micron region is opaque because all the up-radiant IR has been absorbed by atmospheric CO2 (and water vapor). Absorption bands are approximately Gaussian in shape, remember? They have very long tails. CO2 still absorbs at the wings of the 15 micron band. That’s why its GH effect is log-linear. You’re a professional infrared spectroscopist. Absorption of surface-emitted IR by atmospheric CO2 has been understood in detail for more than 50 years. Why is it so hard for you to figure out?

  24. Lou says:

    I’m just curious about how y’all feel about evolution vs creationism. Nye is set to take on creationist Ken Hall about it. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/23/science-guy-bill-nye-explains-why-hes-debating-creationist-ken-ham-on-evolution-and-creationism/ I find it very curious that whenever I debate with liberals about global warming, they always retort to name calling including bible thumper, creationist retard, etc. Funny thing is that I barely ever step inside a church or own a bible book. Actually, I always poke fun at creationists that if I changed words in the bible, it’d sound more like that gods are ETs. It’s just that it seems like hard core global warming believers tend to be hard core Darwin evolutionists. Thanks to the internet (purest freedom of speech that we can ever experience) I’ve come interesting stuff about where we could have originated from that would never fly inside mainstream academic institutions.

    • DirkH says:

      There is a huge complexity problem for Darwinists regarding the origin of life. The first cell must have had functioning enzymes; they start at 100 Amino acids length, you can compute the number of possibilities, change an amino acid and the chain doesn’t fold into the right form to be of use. Evolutionists just say, but 4.5 billion years is a lot of time, but they never bother to actually compute the probability. Hint, it’s too many possibilities.

      So if life sprung into existence by chance, there must have been a simpler reproducing precursor to cells, but as of now all ideas and experiments have failed, AFAIK.

      Then, of course, there’s the problem of missing link fossils, which are missing…

      (Neo)Darwinism is a theory in the making. What do you do with that? It’s not of much use except for ideology.

      • Lou says:

        That’s true. I’ve always told evolutionists that to prove their theories, they would have to build a time machine to travel back in time to observe. Same for Bible. Either way, I find both to be fascinating and try to find links between them. The stories in the bible go back thousands of years and obviously, the translation between languages got murky over time. It could literally mean anything. Imagine if our civilization completely collapsed and we lose all the technologies as we know it, out great-children never knew how they actually work and may see them differently.. Also, almost everything we’ve built will eventually decay into nothing after hundreds or thousands of years. Look at Giza great pyramid that lasted for a really long time… take a closer look inside… it’s amazing. Seems that archaeologists don’t want to believe that that there is a possibility that at that time, they could have been very advanced beyond primitive tools used to build pyramids esp granite objects.

        • DirkH says:

          Modern Egyptology started with Napoleon’s “Egypt expedition” where he wiped out the ruling class; then the Brits sank his ships and he and his soldiers were stranded for a while. He later abandoned them, sneaked his way back into France and somehow convinced everyone that the adventure was a success, and became emperor.
          Since that time the French think they are the deep Egypt experts…

      • Keitho says:

        The problem is, though, that the debate is framed as a binary one. If you don’t believe in evolution then you are a creationist and vice versa. I suspect that Darwinism is a lot like Newtonian mechanics in that it is a working model but lacks the ability to explain everything. Along came Einstein to absorb Newton into a new paradigm. A similar thing will happen with evolution but it certainly won’t strengthen the argument for creationism.

        Why? I hear you ask. Well creationism is simply a faith based system and you can never prove that.

    • glenncz says:

      Humans and chimps diverged 30 million years ago. There are 40 million “differences” between our DNA and theirs. One change per year? By “chance” , these positive mutations kept happening and by chance the individuals with these mutations met and mated, and then their offspring met and mated and so on and so on. How did this happen?
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
      But the Creationist view is nothing but sheer conjecture. It’s not even a theory, it’s pure speculation. We don’t know how we got here, that is why Man created Religion, we seem TO NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER. There is no answer.

  25. Pat Frank says:

    Michael, from the content of my post, it should have been clear that I referred only to Figure 7-8, and that was only to show the measured upward radiant IR. I endorsed none of the text.

    The first paragraph of my original post exactly described thermalization of the CO2 vibrational energy from absorbed radiation in the 15 micron band.

    Do us both a favor. If you want to criticise what I wrote, do pay attention to actual content, thanks.

  26. John F. Hultquist says:

    Steven,
    I made a reply to Dirk at his 12:02 comment. You or anyone else might have an answer for this. It need not be restricted to him. Thanks.

  27. Don’t know whom to address this to, but as somebody said above the satellites measure TOA and I measure BOA and I don’t mean boy scouts. Back radiation is the temperature of the surface, because the H2O at low elevations absorbs and radiates back. Nothing above 13 mikes comes back, which proves it’s all H2O. Or maybe some of it gets absorbed by the CO2 on the way down, but then how would I know that?

    Maybe they get 15 or 20 mikes from satellites looking back at the only planet I can’t see from Earth. I mean, I can see it, like a flea sees a dog. The temperature of the dog is much warmer at the bottom of the fur. The TOF is cold.

    Anyway, the air cools as it gets closer to outer space, where, because it lost 40 degrees, radiates 15 or 20 mikes to the satellites.

    Here’s the rub. Bottom of atmosphere. Don’t ask me I just freeze the telescopes and check the optics and CCDs. Much smarter people design and perfect them for NASA. Dumb people use them after that. Dumber people write papers about what the dumb people saw with them.

    • Andrew in Finland says:

      The relevant deciding factor is the number of watts of low temperature emission from CO2 above warm areas of the earth, where what goes up also goes down. Low temperature emission will be absorbed by water vapour. Therefore having telescopes at various heights in the atmosphere will give more information.

  28. David A says:

    “So, kinetic energy is transferred from CO2 to N2/O2. It’s the next step that’s the core issue — how the climate disperses that energy.”
    ==========================================================
    Local thermodynamic equilibrium states that conducted energy from the surface is just as likely to conduct to CO2 from N2 – 02. If true, then CO2 reduces the residence time of said energy. Cooling.

  29. Michael Moon says:

    Pat Franks,

    So you agree with me that your own link was wrong? Make up your mind, dude.

    Mike Sanicola,

    Phenomenal job!!!

    • Pat Frank says:

      Mike Moon, you persist in misrepresenting what I wrote. If your preference is a monologue, you’re welcome to it.

  30. Stagnant says:

    I find this article truly bizarre. A single scientist essentially trashing what we’ve known for over 150 years with no evidence, no credentials listed, and not a single citation… I’m really not sure what to take away from this. Mike, who are you? Seriously. Have you published your knowledge? I’m sure if the major models involved in understanding our planet are wrong (and have been for, again, 150 years), someone should know about it. But google scholar found nothing by you outside of the field of Genetics. Help me out here, will ya?

    • Perhaps he wants you to try using your brain?

      • Stagnant says:

        I did. And the current state of the science is pretty much entirely pointing in the other direction.

        http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
        http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-43-11-1037
        http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-1-6-759
        http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html
        http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724
        (That last one being from literally over 150 years ago!)

        To put it simply, when I look through the actual peer-reviewed science, I find that it runs contrary to the claims made by Mike Sanicola. The evidence is both well-understood and uncontroversial in academic circles. And then you invite this guy to post his unverified opinion on the subject. Why? What does he have to offer? And if the answer is anything at all, why doesn’t he spend a moment and publish it? After all, something overturning what appears to be a 150-year existing consensus that underpins one of the most important scientific endeavors in the past century would be huge news – if your science was good, you could publish it in some truly high-impact journals.

        Why the link to GE at the front of the article? I searched their site for “Sanicola” and found nothing, by the way, so if he’s from there, they certainly don’t tell us so. Do you know this guy personally? Because I couldn’t find anything on him. Not under google scholar (well, I found one Mike Sanicola, but his field is genetics, not astronomy), not on GE’s site, not any of the typical places one would look.

        Look, I’m sorry, I just don’t understand why this is considered credible. If it’s supported by the peer-reviewed science, then cut out the middle-man (no offense, but Mike seems to be a little on the looney side – yeah, sure, Mike, the entirety of the discipline is a gigantic international fraud) and show us the money. But why would you present something like this without even offering the man’s credentials? No source, just the personal testimony of a person who, as far as I am aware, may very well be the invention of an online troll. What he says runs directly counter to what the peer-reviewed literature shows, and I don’t think anyone here should take him seriously without corroborating evidence.

    • Yep. Use your brain. Ask yourself:

      1. Earth’s surface radiates at 9-13 microns
      2. Atmosphere is transparent at 9-13 microns
      3. Earth radiates into space

      Now, why do I need credentials, citations, or to give you my real name so you can understand something so obvious that a 3rd grader can get it?

      It aint about me dude, it’s about you.

      Now ask yourself:

      How much will we have to increase the CO2 level to get it to start absorbing at 9-13 microns when it doesn’t absorb at 9-13 microns? That will be your homework assignment.

      • Stagnant says:

        “So obvious a 3rd-grader can get it”, and yet over 150 years of peer-reviewed scientific research, starting long before anthropogenic global warming was even hypothesized, claim that you’re simply wrong (and if the moderators would approve my previous comment, you’d see it). I’m no climatologist, nor am I an astrophysicist, nor do I have any relevant credentials. But what I can say is that experience has taught me two things:

        1. If it’s supposedly incredibly important scientific research and it’s not published in peer-reviewed journals, there’s probably something deeply, deeply flawed with it.
        2. If it runs counter to the accepted consensus research, and yet is “so obvious that a 3rd-grader can get it”, there’s probably something deeply, deeply flawed with it. Triply so if it’s not published in peer-reviewed journals.

        (In this case, the solution to #2 seems to be “what about 15 microns, AKA the point where CO2 actually makes a fairly large difference”)

        Look, is it that simple? Then publish it. What are you waiting for? I’m sure Nature or Science would love to have a paper of this significance and importance. But somehow, I get the feeling that it’s you, not 150 years of climatic research in dozens of peer-reviewed papers, that’s missing something.

        • Stagnant, I read your whole argument, all 3 of your posts, and checked all 5 of your links, and in all that waste of time I didn’t find a single piece of evidence, or one relevant argument. All I saw was an angry fool saying “all the peer reviewed science of 150 years blah blah yadda yadda peer review peer review peer review….” and I’m wondering, why do you put your clothes on each morning?

          Oh, that’s not what literally means. Literally means “not figuratively”. Don’t use the word unless you are clarifying that something is not figurative. It just makes you look stupid.

      • Pat Frank says:

        Mike, Figure 7-8 shows that the surface radiates approximately as a black-body, across the IR. WUWT had a post some time ago that provided a good break-down of what happens to that upward IR radiation.

        Most of it is absorbed on the way to space. The window you mention, 9-13 microns, makes it out. That’s the part you’re talking about. It’s the part of the black body IR envelope that escapes into space. The rest of the black body radiation is absorbed, and that energy is re-distributed into the atmospheric gases. The IR absorption is what the inverted absorption bands show in Figure 7-8.

        CO2, along with water, absorbs almost everything of the 13-17 micron black-body radiation emitted by the surface. The 15 micron band black body IR absorbed by CO2 is converted into kinetic energy by collisional deactivation. That’s how the GH business works. The deep question climate science can’t answer is how the climate sub-systems partition that energy. So far, there’s approximately zero evidence that it gets partitioned into sensible heat.

        • OK, so earth’s radiant heat is a bell curve centered at 10 microns, most of it makes it through the window and into space, as I said, but some of the bell curve is past 13 microns and spills into the CO2 band and gets absorbed. Got it.

        • Pat Frank says:

          The terrestrial black body curve is centered around 15 microns, Mike. I haven’t integrated the curve, but a guesstimate by by eye-balling is about 60% of the total black body IR makes it directly back out into space.

        • That’s impossible. As we discussed earlier, peak of 15 microns is -80 C. The average temperature of Earth, giving more weight to the tropics than the poles because they have a much larger surface area, is more like + 20 C which gives a peak of 10 microns

        • Pat Frank says:

          Mike the total thermal energy is obtained by integrating the entire black body curve, not from just one line.

        • But the peak of the curve is not 15. It’s 10.

      • Andrew in Finland says:

        Mike you seem to be missing the obvious that all of the warm emission has to pass through the cold atmosphere. The fact the cold emission does not make it back to earth does not seem relevant to me . Cold emission must cause lower warmer layers to be warmer

      • Andrew in Finland says:

        >>1. Earth’s surface radiates at 9-13 microns

        Mike, Where are you getting the idea the earth surface is only radiating thru 9-13 microns? According to wiki only a small percentage of Earths total surface radiation successfully makes it out to space via the window region of about 8-13 micron.
        http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

        If you are right it will be fairly ground breaking announcement stuff.

        • As I clearly said several times, wiens’ law:

          220 K = 13ɲ peak
          320 K = 9ɲ peak

          I look at your wikipedia figure and it appears to have been created by http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

          Global warming art? Really? What branch of the communist party calls itself Global Warming Art? I prefer to believe wien’s law over a graphic produced by the Globa Nostra

          Whatever wikipedia publishes on the subject of global warming, use it as 100% reliable proof that it’s wrong.

    • Drewski says:

      Stagnant,
      Who needs degrees, studies and peer review when you excel at hyperbole can say “alarmist” 3 times per comment?

      • Whenever I hear the words “peer review” I know I’m talking to a parrot. Then I look for a cracker to give him. “Peer review, peer review, squaaaalk”

        • Drewski says:

          And whenever I see people like you and Steve Goddard trying to talk science while concurrently dismissing one of the major planks of the scientific method as unimportant — namely, peer review, I know I am talking to a fool who takes themselves way too seriously.

          If you aren’t peer reviewed in science, you are not doing science.

        • gator69 says:

          And next we can discuss just how successful government funded climate models perform. :lol:

        • philjourdan says:

          Major fail Drewy. Peer review is NOT a plank of the scientific method. It is a REVIEW (hence the term peer REVIEW) of the paper to ensure the scientific method is FOLLOWED.

          Now I can see why you do not understand the written word. You failed science as well.

        • I wasn’t dismissing peer review. I was mocking people who overuse the term to puff themselves up. My experience with people who overuse the term is they usually can’t even talk about the science at all. Never mind the fact that when it comes to climate science, they use pal review not peer review.

        • Drewski says:

          Phil,
          Definition of Peer review: It is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar COMPETENCE to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by QUALIFIED members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide CREDIBILITY. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication.

          PEER review explains why you can’t trust an electrical engineer to evaluate sea levels or an anxiety expert to evaluate the jet stream or, for that matter, any non-qualified blogger to chime in about climate science.

        • philjourdan says:

          PEER review explains why you can’t trust

          major fail again Drewy. Peer review does not explain that. Again, peer review is to REVIEW that no errors were made in the scientific process. it is NOT part of the process. Which you basically stated in a long winded fashion.

          Keep it short and sweet and maybe you will not come off looking like a long winded fool.

          Think of an AUDIT of a new system. It does nothing to create the system. it ensures that all the eyes were dotted and tees crossed. THAT is peer reviewed, and you do not have to be a programmer to audit a new program.

        • Pat Frank says:

          Not correct, Drewski. Testing observations against a falsifiable physical theory is doing science. Peer review has nothing to say about that.

        • Drewski says:

          Mike,
          “I wasn’t dismissing peer review. . . .when it comes to climate science, they use pal review not peer review.”

          As you are no doubt aware, climate science is an agglomeration of dozens of scientific fields with each field having between hundreds to tens of thousands of qualified members who live in every corner of the globe and who communicate in over a hundred different languages (other than science). To say that they are all comrades who cover for each other for some nebulous and undefined purpose has no basis in reality.

          In the past few days, Steve has come out with a dozen graphs purportedly showing a huge corruption in historical temperature readings and now you are asserting that current atmospheric physics is completely wrong regarding the effect of CO2 on climate. Both, or either, of these things would, if true, shatter current AGW theory and make you both not only heroes but, very likely, wealthy. But only if you can get over that tiny little hurdle of “pal review”.

          You have been working with scientists for 40 years — don’t you have any? Pals that is.

        • Drewski says:

          Pat,
          ANY process requires quality control and evaluation. Peer review has everything to do with it.

        • philjourdan says:

          Given your ignorance of QR, Peer review, and other controls, I take it you are not a scientist, programmer, engineer, or professional?

          if you are, please let us know the location so we can make sure we do not interact with any system you touch.

        • Drewski, feel free to talk about science, and not politics. Your whole “all the scientists agree” argument makes you sound like Al Gore’s shoeshine boy.

        • Drewski says:

          Mike,
          “Politics”?
          What politics?

          “Your whole “all the scientists agree argument”
          Is there one comment made by me on this topic that comes anywhere close to that statement?

          “the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”.
          From where I sit, its pretty clear where the hoax lies — with the people who hide behind fake names, fake titles and either fake or unknown qualifications.

          When it comes to the atmosphere, you talk the talk, but apparently wont walk the walk and give your “theory” credibility through publishing instead you spout the same non-nonsensical “Pal review”‘ argument that Steve inevitably falls back on.

        • philjourdan says:

          Kind of like you are hiding behind a non de plume?

          Wow! The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

        • Yep, and when I look up “Drewski” in the list of authors of pal reviewed articles, it doesn’t show any actual articles, but I so see pictures of your head sticking out of the pocket of known liars Michael Piltdown Mann, Jim Muppet Hansen, and Phil my pocket Jones.

        • Drewski says:

          Mike,
          I can now see that you are a man of integrity and distinction.

          Just not credible.

        • geran says:

          There is the desire (thinking) by some that “peer reviewed” means a document is absolute truth. That is wrong. “Peer review” only means the document has a semblance of truth. The reader is supposed to be able to think for himself. There have been hundreds of properly peer-reviewed documents that have later been found to contain errors. “Peer review” is never a guarantee or warranty.

        • Drewski is neither distinguished, nor credible. He also appears to be not very bright.

        • Drewski says:

          Of course peer review is not infallible, but when it comes to science and if credibility is what you are after, then it is essential.

          But, hey, some people aren’t bothered with quality control. Right Steve?

        • Yes, I suspect that NOAA/NASA temperature data tampering has very low quality control.

        • gator69 says:

          “As I discovered when researching a history of the Nazis at war, much of what scientists did under the Third Reich was regarded as “normal science”, subject to standard protocols of peer review in conferences and journals.”

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3540339/How-Hitler-perverted-the-course-of-science.html

        • Drewski says:

          Phil,
          “Kind of like you are hiding behind a non de plume?’
          (1) I am not trying to make a “name” for myself by using an unreal name to write a blog called “Real Science” that rejects sound scientific methodology while, at the same time, abusing real scientists who are much more rigorous in their own practice of following the scientific method. If your intention is to regularly trash highly qualified scientists, then you should have the stones to do it without a mask
          (2) I am not pretending to be more than just an interested poster.
          (3) Drewski is, in fact, what my close friends call me and have for years.

        • philjourdan says:

          Excuses, excuses. Sanicola is not trying to make a name for himself either. He stated his purpose, and doing it on a blog is not making a name for yourself.

          You accuse others of your own sins and then try to hide behind your ignorance and hypocrisy. While the subject has not come up, you demonstrate all the traits of a liberal:
          #1 – Lie
          #2 – Accuse your opponents of lying
          #3 – Proclaim your omniscience
          #4 – insult those who question #3

          And for the record, you have not proven you have any friends. So for all we know that is a lie as well.

        • Drewski says:

          Steve,
          The only way you are going to effectively prove the low quality / deliberate corruption of NASA and NOAA is to to what Anthony Watts and BEST did, which is to properly frame your own study and then publish. That is, if Phil Jones lets you.

          Good luck.

        • philjourdan says:

          Do you work at being that ignorant? http://retractionwatch.com/2013/08/15/a-real-shame-psychology-paper-retracted-when-data-behind-problematic-findings-disappear/

          Better brush up on your ignorance. You are falling down on the job.

        • Drewski says:

          Yes Steve,
          I also find your innumerable excuses not to publish laughable (and a bit sad).

          And Phil,
          II especially like point #3, but I think you are actually referring to Google — actually Google Scholar — used properly, it gives one amazing powers.

        • philjourdan says:

          Drewy, you address Steve and I, yet you reply to Mike. Are you thread impaired?

          Second, the retraction was in reference to a paper that was published, and widely quoted until some grad student realized it was wrong. What? NOT A PHUD? Just a lowly Grad student? Yep! Just someone who looked at the paper and said “that is not right”.

          So keep looking for your heros and ignoring all the data. You are a classic example of 2 things.

          #1 – Illiteracy – can’t read, write or follow a thread
          #2 – Argumentum ab auctoritate – I am sure you are a good little obedient boy who always listens to your parents. And never thinks for himself.

          learn to comment or start a new thread. And get an education.

        • Drewski says:

          Oh, and Phil,
          I found your link to a retracted paper about SHAME interesting. But tell me, did you choose that paper because of something personal or was it that you couldn’t find any examples in climate science?

        • philjourdan says:

          Drewy, still thread impaired. I guess some people just are incapable of learning. I am not Mike Sanicola, so why did you reply to him?

          And I already told you WHY the link was posted. Since the link required someone to THINK about what they were saying, I should have realized you would never get the connection. I can only provide you with the materials to educate you, I cannot make you think. I do not believe anyone is capable of making you think after your last comment.

      • Pat Frank says:

        Drewski, you were talking about what science *is,* not how it’s evaluated. I addressed the “science is” question. Peer review is evaluation.

        • Drewski says:

          Pat,
          Two sides of the same coin — you can not have a functioning methodology without evaluation and you can’t have a QUALITY methodology without qualified valuers.

          I will paraphrase it again, if you don’t have peer review in science, you are practicing modern-day alchemy.

          Just ask a qualified scientist.

  31. 1776 says:

    My Mom’s Unholy Uterus, Obamacare & The Global Warming Hoax

    • Stagnant says:

      On a side note, I made a post with a list of peer-reviewed papers describing the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. This contained no vulgarity or rudeness (beyond perhaps asserting that it’s rather looney to assert that a scientific field has been actively suppressing the truth in a huge conspiracy for over a century) and was deleted. Why?

  32. GeorgeGR says:

    Illustration of absorption on wavelengths for various greenhouse gases: illustrates the points made by mr. Sanicola
    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

  33. All anyone needs to do to find out the contribution of the warming of each gas in the atmosphere is to measure the spectral absorption bandwidth of each gas.

    This is like measuring the power bandwidth of a stereo amplifier, which is the product of frequency and amplitude, or area under the curve.

    The area for water vapor, or its greenhouse gas effect, is about 26 times larger than the area for CO2.

  34. No Charles. The spectral absorption bandwidth of each gas is great to know. But they can only absorb what is there. They cannot absorb what doesn’t exist.

    This is like a stereo amplifier which can play CD tape record iPod but the only thing that exists is a Beatles record.

    IR from 9 to 13 microns is the Beatles record.

    • Anto says:

      Mike, I’m no expert, but don’t the proponents of enhanced GHG theory talk about absorption in the 15 micron range up in the troposphere/stratosphere, where the temperature is much lower than at surface?

      • 15 microns? That’s -80C. I’m wondering why all that dangerous -80C radiation doesn’t melt all the sea ice around Antarctica so it stops trapping all those icebreakers.

        • Andrew in Finland says:

          Back radiation slows down the heat loss rate of the surface rather than heats the surface. Even the 4k of space is causing the Antarctic ice to be warmer, because the net loss rate to space is a smaller amount because of 4k. -80c is almost 200K, so makes a big difference. At the end of the day I am not sure what you are saying and the smart Alex comments in reply to queries are not helping. Just saying. What actually is the point you are making? Do you understand the warmest argument???

        • Anto says:

          Yes, after a bit more investigation, the minimum temperature in troposhere/stratosphere is around -60C.

        • Pat Frank says:

          Figure 7-8 shows the terrestrial IR envelope is equivalent to a 320 K black body radiator. With obvious atmospheric absorption bands.

  35. Gail Combs - Chemist says:

    Mike Sanicola,
    Thanks for the information and enjoy your retirement.

  36. Gail Combs - Chemist says:

    Jason Calley says: @ January 27, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    @ methylamine “Our foe is a psychopath or an idiot–he cannot be won over. But the sleep-walking sheep MUST be awakened or we’re facing hundreds of millions of deaths as the psychopaths cull their cattle again.”

    YES!! Thank you for saying something that deserves to be repeated over and over….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    They get very anger when I point out the 30,000 a year who die of hypothermia and if they support CAGW and the CO2 con then they are enablers with blood on their hands.

    They go apoplectic when I follow it up demanding that if they believe CAGW to had over the keys to their car and their home and take of their clothes or else they are hypocrites.

    I had one pontificating idiot go beet red complete with bulging eyes and fish mouth as the crowd she was lecturing went into gales of laughter.

    The sheeple just need better leaders than the activist idiots Al Gore is busy training.

    • methylamine says:

      Ah, that is delicious Gail! I’d pay good money to see that.
      I love it when they ball up their pudgy little fists, screw up their faces and look pouty and petulant.

      When we discover there’s nothing to them; they’re bullies, they’re mental midgets, they’re intellectual frauds…THAT’S when we discover how easy it is to beat these people.

      They’re incompetent little nothings.

  37. Kristian says:

    It seems people here are getting this backwards. The problem isn’t the IR wavelengths being absorbed by the atmosphere going OUT. It’s the IR wavelengths being absorbed by the atmosphere coming IN. That’s why it’s important to avoid the water vapour by moving the terrestrial telescopes as high up in dry climes as possible. Because otherwise the water vapour absorbs the INCOMING IR before it ever reaches the telescopes. This is not about that strange ‘climate physics’ notion called ‘back radiation’.

    • Sun is too hot to emit IR

      • Ben says:

        RE: Sun is too hot to emit IR

        Do you have a source for that?

      • Andy Oz says:

        Not sure of the accuracy of this source and thus the quote:

        “About 43% of the total radiant energy emitted from the sun is in the visible parts of the spectrum. The bulk of the remainder lies in the near-infrared (49%) and ultraviolet section (7%). Less than 1% of solar radiation is emitted as x-rays, gamma waves, and radio waves.”

        http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_2_5t.htm

      • Andrew in Finland says:

        The sun emits high temperature short wave IR. The earth emits only low temperature IR. The sun directly warms the atmosphere by over 20%

      • Kristian says:

        Who’s talking about the Sun? I’m talking about the IR coming from different light sources in space that the people running the telescopes want to have a look at. You have to actually ‘see’ these sources in order to study them. You don’t ‘see’ them if their light is already absorbed by the atmosphere before reaching the telescope mirrors/lenses …
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope#Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity

        There is no such thing as ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere (or any object) being warmed to the surface (or any object) warming it. This is nothing but a special ‘climate physics’ invention.

        • Kristian says:

          And by ‘invention’, I mean a (intentional?) misinterpretation of the ‘ideal radiative heat transfer equation’.

      • Robert Clemenzi says:

        Sun is too hot to emit IR

        No – it emits plenty of IR, much more than the Earth emits. The reason it appears to be zero is because the Earth is so far from the Sun. Because of 1/R^2, the amount of short wave IR measured at the Earth is extremely small.

      • Michael Hammer says:

        Hi Steve; In fact the sun emits according to Planks law for an object at 5500K and that does include significant thermal IR energy. However it consists of FAR FAR more NIR, visible and some UV energy. The fraction of total energy in the thermal IR range is very small, even the NIR energy is a very small percentage of the total energy emission. Once the energy density is diluted by the inverse square law of distance between sun and earth the thermal IR energy is insignificant but not really quite zero.

        OK I’m nitpicking, I admit it but your comment could be construed as saying objects if hot enough don’t emit thermal IR and thats not quite right. They do, its just that they emit so much more energy at shorter wavelengths.

        • Andrew McRae says:

          Here I agree totally with Mr Hammer. Nits included.
          Nits are the difference between true and false.

    • Kristian, re: the telescopes and incoming IR. We usually don’t use them in the daytime. The IR spectrum has several bands or windows we can look through and each window has its own problems with IR contamination. Near IR bands like the J band have airglow even at night, Mid IR the telescope itself emits IR and has to be frozen with liquid nitrogen, for far IR even that isn’t cold enough and we use liquid helium to cool the scopes, and you have to breathe through a pipe so your breath doesn’t emit IR. At least with far IR you can work in the daytime because the sun doesn’t emit far IR. No heated observatories, you have to be out there freezing your tush off, that’s why they send idiots like me to the south pole to test the scopes. The scopes themselves are very simple, just 2 mirrors, one concave and one flat, no lenses. Near IR uses regular visible light telescopes. That’s called optical IR. Can’t do that in the daytime, sky is full of near IR in the daytime.

  38. Andrew McRae says:

    Astonishing comments made by Mike Sanicola, January 27, 2014 at 7:08 pm.
    > “Earth’s surface radiates at 9-13 microns” and “Other wavelengths of IR that CO2 can and might absorb, are not emitted by Earth.”

    If thermal radiation worked the way Mr Sanicola says it does, then at their normal operating temperature of 2773 K our tungsten incandescent lightbulbs would emit only monochromatic 1082nm radiation, which is outside human visual range.

    I have one question.
    How did GE make so much money selling lightbulbs for a century if, according to Sanicola Physics™, nobody could use their light bulbs’ output to see at night?

    Some “IR expert” eh?

    Gail Combs commented:
    > “Thanks for the information and enjoy your retirement.”

    I must wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments. Mr Sanicola will have to learn to enjoy retirement because after a gaff as monumental as this one there won’t be any coming back from retirement.

    • Tungsten light bulbs. Nice. You do know, I hope, that only 10% of the energy radiated by tungsten filaments is visible light. The peak radiation wavelength you give is correct, 90% of the energy emitted is invisible infrared which centers, as you say, around 1089 nm according to Wien Physics™ . (Actually I get 1044 but who’s arguing). So what you tell me is that you do understand Wien’s Law, but have no idea what it means. You try to disprove it, and are basically saying “No, Wiens Law is wrong, the 2773 K filament isn’t making infrared at all, because you can see at night with it!!”

      With your level of understanding of science, save your money wisely, I doubt you will make it to retirement from a corporation that’s been on the Dow Jones every year for 120 years.

      • Andrew McRae says:

        No, Mike, you’re the one who’s mixed up. You don’t even understand the meaning of the words you’re typing.

        You stated that because the peak of earth’s emission spectrum isn’t 15um, that therefore it doesn’t emit any 15um radiation for CO2 to absorb. That is the plain English meaning of the two sentences of yours which I already quoted. You also said: “The spectral absorption bandwidth of each gas is great to know. But they can only absorb what is there. They cannot absorb what doesn’t exist.”
        They are your words. The meaning in context is clear. You believe CO2 cannot absorb 15um radiation that isn’t being emitted by the Earth, implying the Earth is not emitting any 15um radiation.
        I say you understood my rhetorical question perfectly. I did not attempt to disprove Wien’s Law, I used Planck’s Law to show the peak given by Wien’s Law is not the only thermally relevant wavelength and so it disproves your nonsense. This was illustrated by the everyday example of a lightbulb in which the emission peak (Wien’s Law) is invisible to our eyes and yet (by Plank’s Law) the lightbulb still works visibly.

        Even more hilariously you posted a link to a diagram on scienceofdoom to illustrate the sun’s emission spectrum, and yet the same diagram shows the thermal emission spectrum of the earth which includes 15um, in exact contradiction to your earlier statement. You tried to support your point by pointing to evidence which contradicts it, never noticing any problem from doing so.

        When alert reader “Andrew in Finland” (no relation) wrote:

        Mike, Where are you getting the idea the earth surface is only radiating thru 9-13 microns?

        You responded to him at January 29, 2014 at 9:27 am:

        As I clearly said several times, wiens’ law:
        220 K = 13ɲ peak
        320 K = 9ɲ peak

        You keep invoking Wien’s law seemingly without understanding that Planck’s Law gives the full picture of the spectrum and that Wien’s Law is implied by – and derivable from – Planck’s Law.

        That is only half of your gaff, the other half being the mistake of assuming that direct emission from the surface is the only relevant emission, when the emission from the troposphere into the dry air of the stratosphere is more important since CO2 will have more effect there. The thermal emission spectrum of the troposphere is measured to contain 15um radiation when looking down from 20km altitude. http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-2-upward-and-downward-radiation-p223.png

        You have even retreated already from your earlier statements when Mike Hammer gave you an education on the topic, as follows:

        However thermal emission conforms to Planks law and if you solve Planks law for 273K you find there is indeed substantial emission at 14.7 microns. In fact the intensity is about 80% of the peak intensity.
        From the point of view of an astronomer CO2 absorption may be irrelevant since they dont look between about 13 and 17 microns but unfortunately that does not mean there is no emission in that range or that CO2 absorption is irrelevant in a global warming sense. Atmospheric CO2 does absorb some of the thermal emission from Earth’s surface.

        To which you have already replied:

        Mike Sanicola says:
        January 28, 2014 at 2:54 pm

        Point taken. Thanks.

        So my point is “taken” by you when somebody else tells you the same thing, but not when I say the same point.
        You say Wien’s Law is to be believed, but you implied that Planck’s Law is not to be believed.
        You say we should believe the emissions spectrum diagram that you linked to earlier but implied we should not believe everything that same diagram depicts.
        There does not seem to be much point in trying to educate someone who can hold three pairs of mutually exclusive statements about the same topic in their mind and believes all six of them.

        Just forget it, Mike. Just let it go. Enjoy your retirement.

        • Andrew. Very quickly. When somebody says that all the girls who screamed at the Beatles in 1964 thought Paul was the cute one and screamed at him, and you do a scientific study and find that only 71% of the girls who screamed at the Beatles were screaming at Paul, 15% were screaming at John, 11% were screaming at Ringo, 2% were screaming at George, and 1% were screaming because they saw an earwig on her bloody trousers, can you come out and declare the entire study to be fraudulent and the author should just go back and enjoy his retirement at GE because he said all the girls were screaming at Paul? People know that “all” means most. I said the peak was 10 mikes and any idiot knows there is a bell curve, Plank or Gauss or otherwise, which I assumed people would understand, but some idiot says no, it’s a Plank curve, like that was some new earth-shattering news, because they graduated from high school 2 years ago and were taking freshman physics and were so excited about learning about Planck, and another piece of shit Obama liar says the peak is 20 microns and I prove he’s a moron so he drops it to 15 and I say he’s a piece of shit so he says, yeah, I’m sorry, it was only -60 C…..ok I said very quickly and this is enough and I don’t give a shit. You use words like “hilariously” to describe my comments, but fail to realize that Nero thought the burning of Rome was hilarious. It’s funny when you say I think Planks law, which you spell Planck but whatever, is not to be believed, but not as funny as when Rodney Dangerfield said, “My wife is so stupid, the doctor told her to stop eating red meat, so she bought food coloring.” Mike Hammer made a good point and I said point taken. Mike Hammer seems like a really bright guy. You think you made the same point? About the tungsten light bulbs? Mike Hammer said “From the point of view of an infrared astronomer, CO2 absorption may be irrelevant since they dont look between about 13 and 17 microns” which is a really bright comment. I appreciate intelligent interplay. But all you said was “light bulbs would emit monochromatic light……” Do you have any idea how stupid any argument using the word monochromic would be to an optometrist with a BA from Vassar, and an OD from SUNY, a Phd in astronomy from Cambridge in England, who quit giving eye exams in the 1980’s to start working for GE designing infrared telescopes for NASA, would be, when at the same time, your primary concern was swimming up your mother’s fallopian tubes trying to find your egg? And here you are teaching me about light bulbs? I’m laughing my ass off, and I don’t mean Barry Gordy’s Motown kid. But I do love the video.

        • Andrew McRae says:

          Mike, we could have done without the bile, though it certainly had its comic moments. More of a tragi-comedy due to the obvious desperation of its author. But the best two parts were where you tacitly admitted you had made the mistake that I had pointed out.

          On 25 Jan you stated: “CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.”
          On 27 Jan you stated “Nothing above 13 mikes comes back, which proves it’s all H2O.”
          Now in your latest wide-ranging reply you inform us that ‘people’ ‘know’ that “all” means “most”, an astonishing rewriting of the dictionary which makes one wonder why the word “most” was ever invented. Unfortunately for you this linguistic revisionism will not fool any native speakers of English. “Most” means only a majority and its selection over many alternatives implies the word “all” would be false in the same context. Whether you knew the earth thermally emitted 15um radiation is not particularly relevant as your audience can only judge your comment by the words you actually used. In trying to refit the meanings of your original wording to match the reality you have tacitly admitted that their original meaning was not the reality.
          But you cannot simply chalk this up as an honest mistake of simple miscommunication or the unspoken connotations of jargon, as you repeated the same nonsense using different wording on two other occasions.

          On Jan 27 at 7:08 pm you stated “Earth’s surface radiates at 9-13 microns” and “Other wavelengths of IR that CO2 can and might absorb, are not emitted by Earth.”, implying there was no radiation at 15 microns. On 28 Jan at 1:36am server time you repeated this view in your musical analogy for earth’s thermal emissions where you stated to Charles that “IR from 9 to 13 microns is” “the only thing that exists”.
          So at 1:36am in SanicolaPhysics™ the surface outgoing 15um radiation did not exist. At 1:04pm that same day I pointed out this mistake in my first comment on this thread. Less than two hours later at 2:38pm you were informing Pat Frank that SanicolaPhysics™ had been hastily revised when you admitted “some of the bell curve is past 13 microns and spills into the CO2 band and gets absorbed. Got it.” At 1:36am the 15um radiation did not exist and at 2:38pm it did exist.
          I will presume that “people” “know” that the phrase “the only thing that exists” is not merely another shorthand way of saying “NOT the only thing that exists”. Call me presumptuous, but I shall presume further that “are not emitted by Earth” was not casual astronomy jargon that clearly meant “are also emitted by Earth”.

          Your gung-ho misuse of the words “all” and “not” may have been simply the tip of the sloppy-thinking iceberg. A pattern of incomprehension of physics jargon emerges clearly from your previous responses.

          After I used the word monochromatic to describe radiation of a single wavelength, you stated my argument was “stupid” for using the word “monochromic”. Let us ignore your assertion of a word I didn’t actually use as yet another honest typing mistake. Let us instead simply take note that I and the supervisors of the infrared carbon dioxide laser laboratory at UC Berkeley are equally comfortable with serious use of the word “monochromatic” in discussion of ultra narrow bandwidth radiation. That may seem unfair to you since you did not go to Berkeley, but this is not a “schools of thought” discrepancy in terms. It would seem you need to go back to school and be lectured by the Professor of Chemical Physics at Cambridge who was clearly not aiming to parade stupidity to his students when he taught them “Tunable diode lasers may be used: in this case, the light source is monochromatic but its frequency can be tuned.”
          In case there was any doubt as to whether such casual use of the term “monochromatic” would be tolerated at PhD level, we find a PhD thesis at Cambridge’s Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory in which one of the variables in a detector sensitivity equation is described as “the frequency of the (supposed nearly monochromatic) radiation.” The author Mr Buscher was granted his PhD from Cambridge in 1988, surely a sign of someone who was not stupid at that time, and the same year went on to publish a paper cited 69 times on that same astronomy topic. Perhaps you ought to ring up Mr Buscher and tell him “how stupid any argument using the word [monochromatic] would be”.

          By the way, I spell the thermal emission spectrum formula as “Planck’s Law” rather than your more wooden construction since Planck is the inventor’s name. Perhaps it just goes to show we can’t trust “IR Experts” with a capital E.

          You will have to laugh at me even louder if you wish to drown out the noise of the Web laughing at you.

          You made an important mistake. You have recognised that your original wording was in error, but you have been reluctant to admit the mistake. Nonetheless you’ve already issued a correction about earth’s thermal emission which adequately matches the observational evidence and so ends any earlier misunderstanding. That should have been the end of the issue.

  39. So let me see if I can get this straight.

    The IR near the earth surface, both outgoing and incoming, does not contain significant intensity in the absorption and emission bands of CO2; instead, absorption and back-radiation are dominated by H2O. On the other hand, at the surface of the atmosphere, the emission into space is shifted to longer wavelengths, and in the spectrum of that outgoing radiation there now are some valleys that correspond to CO2 absorption.

    This picture does differ from the usual cartoon representations, in which CO2 is shown to back-radiate right down to the surface. However, does this really fundamentally change anything? To the extent that the spectra at the bottom and the top of the atmosphere differ, the heat that is traveling must undergo absorption and re-radiation. Each time a quantum of energy is absorbed, there is a chance that it is radiated back down; even if back-radiation doesn’t make it all the way down, it will still on average delay the outward energy transport. In the outer (colder and spectrally shifted) layers of the atmosphere, CO2 participates in the absorption and re-radiation, and therefore does cause a certain delay.

    Note that I’m not arguing that the CO2 effect is large; I’m only saying that it should be greater than zero.

  40. Andrew in Finland says:

    I have been attacking the idea of C02 being a significant cause of warming for years and you delete all of my posts?

  41. Robert Clemenzi says:

    Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole.

    nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all.

    That is utter nonsense. At 300K (80°F) the 15um CO2 absorption band is solidly within the Earth’s blackbody emission spectrum. Earth bound telescopes don’t work near that frequency because the atmosphere is totally opaque!

    At 300K, a blackbody emits about 459.27 W/m2. At that temperature, CO2 at 350 ppm will absorb between 64 and 67 W/m2 (depending on the band broadening formula used) in the lowest 1,000 meters of atmosphere. Additional atmosphere has almost no effect.

  42. Michael Hammer says:

    Mike;

    I read some of your follow up comments. Yes the level of CO2 in the atmosphere well and truly saturates the line centre at 14.7 microns. It also saturates the R and P branches however further increase in concentration does not have zero effect. It causes some further line broadening. On the long wavelength side that is more or less irrelevant since it overlaps with H2O absorption but on the short wavelength side it overlaps the atmospheric window and that does cause some additional retention of energy. Heinz Hug had something to say about this years ago and concluded the incremental absorption was almost neglegible. I have done a rough calculation (trying to refine it at present) but it looks like the incremental energy retained by doubling CO2 is around 1watt/sqM not the 3 – 4 claimed by warmists. That would translate to a temperature rise before any feedbacks of maybe 0.3 to 0.4C. Of course warmists claim massive positive feedback from water vapour the evidence for which is the hotspot in the upper tropical troposphere – you know, the one that can’t be found by 1000’s of balloon flights. On the other hand the fact that all stable systems show net negative feedback is disregarded.

    My analysis suggests net negative feedback is FAR more likely (due to the combined action of water vapour and clouds) so the 0.3-0.4C is reduced further to utter insignificance.

    Then again the fundamental cornerstone of the AGW theory is that rising CO2 reduces energy loss to space – measured as outgoing long wave radiation. Pity the last 30 years of NOAA data shows that OLR has been rising not falling but then it seems AGW theory can surmount any and every obstacle even direct refuction of its fundamental premise. Unfortunately political movements are like that.

  43. Michael Hammer says:

    Further to my last comment for those interested (I am sure you know all of this very well already Mike); If you assume the CO2 vibrational resonance at 14.7 microns is a single line concentration broadened to 13.5 to 16 microns (logarithmic relationship between incremental energy retention and concentration) then indeed one does get about 3 watts/sqM per doubling. However the central resonance peak is overlayed with multiple rotational modes which gives rise to a forest of peaks (the R and P branches) as well as the central Q branch. These lines also saturate at very low concentration and merge into a single saturated absorption band which then broadens further with increaing concentration. Based on this the incremental energy retention is far lower and as I said a quick back of the envelope calculation suggetss more like 1 watt/sqM but I want to calculate it more accurately.

    • Anto says:

      Thanks for that, Michael. I was wondering how such a large difference in estimated w/sqM per doubling came about. That makes perfect sense.

  44. Andrew McRae says:

    My comment #comment-313732 at 1:04pm yesterday (~18h ago) is still stuck in moderation and there is no contact email address for the pseudonymous owner of this blog, so I can’t ask for it to be released any other way.

    On tangential matters…
    I find I’m again in partial agreement with Mike Hammer. Agreed on absorption by CO2 of earthly radiation being a real thing. Not quite so agreed on his OLR objection to the (C)AGW hypothesis.
    Last time I checked, when an object gets warmer its OLR will increased in accordance with the S-B Law. According to ocean buoys and satellites the earth’s average temperature did increase between 1980 and 2004. No matter the cause of that increase, if a temperature increase occurred then OLR will increase too. The OLR is a very broad band, whereas Mr Hammer is well aware that the CO2 and H2O absorption bands are only a portion of that band.
    As the temperature increase over that period was mainly a result of the natural ~60 year ocean cycle of temperature being in an ascending segment and also the Svensmark effect reducing cloud cover, it follows the Earth would have increased total OLR in response anyway.

    • Michael Hammer says:

      Sorry Andrew I cannot agree. Sure as the temperature increases OLR will increase, no argument there. However the AGW thesis is that Earths temperature is increasing BECAUSE rising CO2 reduces OLR thus creating an imbalance where incoming energy exceeds outgoing energy hence rising temperature. So temperature is rising because OLR is reduced by CO2 but the rising temperature causes OLR to increase above its original level. ie: its simultaneously both increasing and decreasing? If the AGW thesis were credible one might have expected a fall in OLR and then a slow rise back to the original level as the earth warmed up but not a rise above the 1980 level.

      Further, the rise in OLR since 1980 is about 2.5 watts/sqM while the temperature rise is since 1980 is only about 0.5C. That would imply a temperature sensitivity of 5watts/sqM/C which is too high for it to be totally due to temperature. Its only achievable by a rise in apparent emissivity and in that regard there is no question AGW predicts a fall in apparent emissivity not a rise.

      • Andrew McRae says:

        > “If the AGW thesis were credible one might have expected a fall in OLR and then a slow rise back to the original level as the earth warmed up but not a rise above the 1980 level.”

        In the first year after an enormous instantaneous CO2 pulse, yes, but that event never happened. It’s seeking equilibrium all the time and that imaginary target should in theory be moving steadily higher by a small amount with increasing GHGs.
        As a Lukewarmer, I find it strange that you want to make the same flawed assumption about the real world that the IPCC makes in their GCMs – that CO2 is the only factor increasing temperature. Basic AGW is nothing more than the greenhouse effect. The GCMs are more than just AGW, so may fail to predict temperatures by failing to predict natural variability over 20 years even if their GHE treatment of CO2 was sound. The moment you admit CO2 is not the only warming factor involved, and is not even the largest involved, the simple dip-and-rise curve you suggest just goes out the window. Out the atmospheric window, actually!

        I have seen your allusion to a 2.5W/m^2 rise before, but when I grabbed the OLR data it says:
        1980 230.0456
        2011 232.8239
        2013 231.7598
        So that’s either a 1.7W/m^2 rise or a 2.7W/m^2 rise depending on the stopping point. There is no year in the data that would give a rise of 2.5 to the nearest decimal place. How did you get 2.5? So now I’m concerned about my data. I got the data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, which credits NOAA as the source. Do you know of a better place to get OLR observations?

        Also the OLR graph shape looks like the top half of The Bat Signal. It doesn’t look very carbon-ish, obviously. Natural factors completely swamp the steady influence of CO2 on time scales even as long as 34 years. Again, the S-B law is not optional, especially when CO2 did not cause the majority of warming (it just contributed some of it).

        What would really knock the socks off “enhanced greenhouse theory” itself would be if predictions of changes in OLR at the key CO2 wavelengths did not match observation. The (13.88 …13.33 µm) / (15.3 …14.7 µm) radiance ratio should be increasing with higher CO2, according to conventional radiation transfer models of the greenhouse effect :
        http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/atmospheric-radiation-8k-toa-radiation-280ppm-550-850cm-expanded.png
        It’s strange that the 15um CO2 emission line itself does not increase under this model, but the areas on either side of it do.

        I’ve no idea if that’s actually been checked. The chances of the Establishment bothering to measure this seems low. They are leaning on the OHC as their crutch at the moment, hoping to ride out the Pause, the poor dears.

        • Kristian says:

          The point I think Michael Hammer is trying to make, Andrew McRae, is that as long as we see the OLR increases with the temperature, then there is no reason to assume that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has had ANYTHING to do with the temperature rise since the 70s. Because its isolated effect would go the other way.

          So its ‘effect’ on global temperatures is reduced to pure conjecture. Ah, yeah, we don’t see no sign of it, but it’s there, be sure, somewhere, hidden, behind there, pulling the strings … somehow.

          The whole ‘It DOES have an effect, we just don’t SEE it’ argument is not real science. It is not based on anything empirical. It’s what we call ‘pathological science’.

        • Andrew in Finland says:

          Andrew, For a constant heating, If OLR increases then the heat content of the Earth is reducing. If greater greenhouse ability is the cause of surface warming, we would not expect the OLR to increase over time even if the oceans are boiling. If GHE increases the OLR reduces until the surface is no longer warming and then it returns to the previous value

      • Andrew McRae says:

        And before I forget… there’s another reason we could all be quite wrong about the greenhouse effect. Miskolczi.
        http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c171tn430x43168v/?p=ad1e44ae55754e548ae474618bfb4102&pi=8
        Even Zagoni’s explanations never quite made sense to me.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/#comment-2656
        It seems they believe in a greenhouse effect but the increased CO2 displaces water vapour to leave no resulting incremental effect on total absorption.
        If Miskolczi is right, I will be one of many many people with egg on my face. I would think his hypothesis could be checked by the same band ratio measurement I suggested before. I don’t know.

  45. Gamecock says:

    A question, Mr. Sanicola. How does all this relate to Venus? Venus has been subjected to runaway green house catastrophe due to it’s 90 bar CO2 atmosphere, it is commonly claimed. Is that theory plausible, or does that need to be reconsidered?

  46. I don’t know. Why don’t we move Earth 40 million miles closer to the sun, replace our .04% Co2 atmosphere with 99%, and increase the pressure to 90 bars, and see.

  47. The Griss says:

    Gamecock..

    At the equivalent pressure as Earth’s in the Venusian atmosphere, the temperature is almost exactly the multiple it should be relative to its distance from the sun.

    There is no CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus.. very simple.

    The temperature at the surface is purely a factor of the massive atmospheric pressure retaining energy.

  48. M. Sanicola says:

    OK I found a graph that shows just how much the opacity of the atmosphere is changed by adding CO2 to it. http://www.hyzercreek.com/Infrared%20Sky%20001.jpg

    Look at the little dotted lines. You may need a microscope to see them.

    from “Thermal Physics” by Blundell, Oxford U Press

  49. M. Sanicola says:

    That graph shows a tiny decrease of TOA radiation to space at 700 ppm around 14 and 16-17 microns, which shows there is a trivial increase in absorption of IR there, by raising CO2 to 700 ppm, but if you look really closely at 15 microns you see the radiation to space *increases*. So, as negligible as the atmospheric absorption of IR is at 14 and 16-17, it’s offset by an increase of radiation to space at 15.

    Case closed. Trapping of more heat by raising CO2 is wrong, and even if it’s not wrong, its too trivial to even be talking about.

  50. william says:

    When i see all of you arguing so hard over CO2 absorption bands I know damn well that the world has been sold a pig in a poke about co2 causing warming, the above argument goes on and on and if co2 truly made any difference you would all be in agreement. So who ever is right I don’t know but it seems nor does anyone else .

    But it makes very interesting reading and of course I want Mike Sanicola to be 100% correct.

    Anyway I have to agree with the comment made – we do not know who Mike Sanicola is – but it would appear that he was working in an area that would give him hands on experience in this field, to the others in the argument where do you fit in with hands on experience – I would like to know.

    Experience V I read the books and your wrong?

    • 4TimesAYear says:

      Well, let me ask if you feel CO2’s radiation on a cloudy winter day or during a cold winter night….I sure don’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s